It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Oops. My mistake. Don't know why I said Guy.
With the budget, they might have been able to do a decent adaptation.
It's an easy mistake to make on a James Bond forum. ;)
"And I thought DAF was comedic, but Hamilton's stupid Dracula TV special sure takes the cake!"
From what I understood, it began and concluded with the failures of The Mummy in 2017 but I see that the 2020 adaptation of The Invisible Man is considered part of the universe, so I really can't tell.
It seems that Universal is making more mistakes than DC adapting their content.
It speaks volumes when the universe essentially spawned and died off just one misfire.
So what stopped them? Too many suits, not enough artists? Too many artists, not enough suits? Too many safe bets, not enough risks? Too many risks, not enough safe bets? Still, it can't be that hard. Think outside the box. Write Dracula, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Frankenstein Monster, the Creature, and the Wolfman into the 21st century. Just don't throw an old-school Tom Cruise adventure flick made for a 2002 audience into 2017, expecting us to want more.
The Invisible Man did it right. Pristine, modern, slick, elevated and brisk. Forget Dracula Untold and The Mummy; carefully ease new iterations of the old characters into the modern world. No Lugosi 2.0 or Karloff redone, no Gothic nightmare stuff but adequate metaphors of the post-9/11, post-COVID fears that haunt us today. The Invisible Man tackled the #MeToo debate. Now reconfigure the others too. There is always interest in Draculas and wolfmen, but not necessarily in the original (literary) characters.
Marvel created a universe like an ever-expanding theme park, the fun factor pushed to eleven. Universal can aim for smarts. Keep the budgets low enough; write clever scripts; address the modern fear of the collapse of our society; forget ghouls and things that go bump in the night. Before long, you can have a few hits in your pocket. And then you can build. Make it happen without people seeing it coming, like Split. A Dark Universe? Yes, please! But as soon as you're thinking Marvel, you lose. It can't be Marvel. This can only work if you make films that A24 would release, rather than Disney. This can only work if you start small (The Invisible Man) rather than loud, spectacular, and pretentious (The Mummy). The children of the night won't start making music again unless people stop thinking about big cash, Hollywood blockbusters and cheap universe set-ups.
This Dark Universe will not come easily. Universal is going to have to work for it. As soon as they realise that and commit to it, we can see it happen and scream that "it's aliiiive!" Until then, it'll just be one false start after another.
doubling down on what makes them recognisable instead of going for more obscure characters and trying to reinvent the wheel.
You just made me cry, sir. I want this.
That's pretty much the issue: they tried to use a label and a brand with no regard on content.
Couldn't agree more.
I tend to believe studio tendancies to update and modernize classic characters more than often go wrong and fall flat.
The VAN HELSING film from 2004 (hard to beleive that 's been nearly 2 decades ago), might've been decent had it not been turned into an action adventure. There's quite a bit I liked about that film: the characters' physical looks; Dracula, The Frankenstein Monster and so forth somewhat updated, but still recognizable.
It's reasonably fun, but I never had the desire to watch it again.
Haven't seen that one.
Slowly rewatching the 1977 BBC Dracula. A lot is hit and miss, but really love the sober, naturalistic approach. The three brides showing up is a bit silly with the psychedelic images, otherwise it's suitably creepy, the brides being both sexual and repellent. The scene is spoiled when Dracula shows up. Jourdan lacks the menace to convey "diabolical rage". Oh how I wish Christopher Lee had been cast instead!
And I think I might have been unkind to Frank Finlay in this thread and others. He may not have been the ideal Van Helsing, but he has presence and is fairly close to the novel counterpart. Less of an action man, more of an academic and like the novel's VH, warm and kindly.
It is an oddly compelling film. It plays like a comedy though you can tell nobody making the film thought of it as one. Udo Kier’s performance is so ridiculous yet so full of passion at the same time. It’s fascinating to watch. I don’t mean that in a derisive way either. That’s simply what it is. His performance is ridiculous, overspilling with passion, and downright fascinating. The whole film is too. You can't help but admire it.
Yes.
Exacty. I love the over the top tone in his performances . Really perfect for those types of films. I believe Kier once said his favorite film of his was Blood For Dracula .
I can definitely see why. He really went all out in it. I'll have to give this one a rewatch sometime. Flesh too.
Kier would have been a fantastic addition to the Bond canon at some point (still could be) or to any kind of pulp cinema. He did voice Mister Toad in Beware the Batman.
I could see Kier as a Bond villain. He'd be great.
Don't know, but it's on the version I'm watching on YouTube.
Talking of children, anybody noticed that the whole Bloofer Lady subplot is often glossed over, if not entirely omitted in the adaptations? I wonder why is that, although I have a few theories.